Conquer Club

donelladan wrote:
And if the guys join systemecally all the game you are in only to annoy you, then you report him to C and A, and I guess the site can block you of playing together and no more pb.

Generally a lot of our reports are One time instances (sometimes 2 or 3) of a user annoying someone. We generally ask the user to FAMO (Foe and Move On), as they are generally small things (So and so suicided on me, he uses tactics that I really don't like).

Some users don't like players that reveal positions in Fog of War games. We tell them to foe. But now you are asking this player to only ever create FOW games because someone on their foe who reveals fog could now join.

I dont see how my suggestions would create ton of new codes. Seems pretty simple to replace foe action by automatic sending of a PM rather than by blocking, but of course I am not expert in the field.

And otherwise I agree with OP that foeing shouldnt prevent of the foe to join a game you didnt create. And I added that, because if you foe you dont want to play with him, you get a PM if your foe join same game than you. That's all !

And that invite take priority over foe, well I dont see any improvement here, if you dont want to play your foe you dont want someone is able to invite him in your game. I dont see why invite shoulbe be able to overcome foe. I see here way of potential abuse to take revenge on someone that foe you otherwise


Otherwise I dont think my example with King's court is a rare case. I think there is a lot of "micro community" or a lot of map and settings that are played intensively by a relative small amount of player. One stupid guy is enough to damage the whole community, if this one is good and isnt foed by other member, but he used to foe beginner for example.

And Shannon, maybe you dont foe for bad reasons, but it does not mean other player use the foe option the same way than you. I have been foe for bad reasons as well as for good one by some players. Some agreed to remove it later, some never did. Some people didnt even remember why they foed me and they did it after one game where there was no game chat - and after reviewing it I couldnt see any reason for them doing so, nor could them ! So I dont think we can expect that the whole CC community use that feature in a reasonable and sensible way.

citizencane86 wrote:

clangfield wrote:Sorry, but this is a very one-sided view.
Try turning it round: you have foed someone because he was very rude to you, played badly, broke a truce, gave you a bad rating, whatever. You really don't want to play him ever again, and it's all perfectly justifiable in your eyes.
You then join a game, and there's a spot left after you.
According to the suggestion, your foe should then be allowed to join the game because he hasn't foed you.
But you, the paying user, have foed him, so why should you have to put up with playing him again?
The only sure way to guarantee that you're not playing them would be to join every game last, and for any game with more than two players, that option isn't open to all.
Just consider that if you're allowed to join your foe's games, then they're allowed to join yours, which kind of makes foeing redundant.

Again, this ignores the fundamentals behind why people are foed!

No, what he mentioned ARE the fundamentals behidn why people are foed.

citizencane86 wrote:Sometimes it can be justified through the circumstances you have mentioned, but what about those whom are foed simply because the foer is being a bit*ch - something this site condones.

I don't at all disagree that there are individuals with serious personality problems who foe for the reasons you state, and which is condoned by the site. That being said, you're making the situation WORSE, not better, by what you are suggesting. As long as the site allows people to foe for jackass reasons, then it's legitimate for people to foe for jackass reasons. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's also very hard to regulate something like that...how do you prove WHY they foe'd you? That would take an enormous amount of work on the part of moderation, and so it's simply and pretty understandably not worth their time.

citizencane86 wrote:Now, the situation/circumstances you illustrate bring the entire foeing system into question. Why would "anyone" want to play against someone who:
- suicides the game
- rude/verbal, etc.

Maybe it's not just the mechanic I'm arguing that needs to be revisted. Instead, maybe the entire foesing system should be eliminated:
- Create a displinary structure
- You cannot adhere to it after x reviews, your account is deleted (and the person at fault loses $25).

You're just creating enormous work for the moderation team (who are volunteers, not paid workers). I view the foe system similarly to "freedom of speech". People here have the freedom to foe for whatever reason they would like to. Sometimes, those reasons are demonstrably bullshit, but they still have the freedom to do it.

Fazeem wrote:so the logic I see is the site has a hypocrisy when it comes to foeing, what the site advocates is those that are foed should suck it up and create a new game with the same settings but those doing the foeing should not have to create there own game to avoid playing a foe because they may not know enough people?

There is a suggestion that has been accepted wherein if I foe someone, they cannot join my games AND I cannot join their games. It is seven years old, but hey...are we in a rush to get the system working right? Anyway, my point is that this would essentially fix the problem.

citizencane86 wrote:If you harass, are beligerant, racist, etc. you can EXPECT a ban WITHOUT refund. Yet, there are no bans...

This is a statement of ignorance. Bans certainly occur. They're not even particularly rare. It is just that it takes extraordinary circumstances (be they of consistency over time or of significance of individual act) to warrant one. You'll find few who are greater "disgruntlers" than I as far as how the rules are enforced on this site, but bans certainly happen.

Fazeem wrote:I think that this is a very valid suggestion a foe should only be able to block you from games they create. Making this change would definitely decrease frivolous foeing, multiple identical games that take forever to fill, increase participation. The current system provide the potential for 1 person on the site to lock the rest of the site out of every open public game they do not start.

Noone has addressed this issue and potential/actual abuse by the current system. this suggestion along with the other one of not being allowed to join games of people you foed would resolve these problems but which more effectively?

Fazeem wrote:

Fazeem wrote:I think that this is a very valid suggestion a foe should only be able to block you from games they create. Making this change would definitely decrease frivolous foeing, multiple identical games that take forever to fill, increase participation. The current system provide the potential for 1 person on the site to lock the rest of the site out of every open public game they do not start.

Noone has addressed this issue and potential/actual abuse by the current system. this suggestion along with the other one of not being allowed to join games of people you foed would resolve these problems but which more effectively?

Not possible to join every game, as there is a 50 game limit on games waiting to Start.

I can't imagine someone actually doing this. In the 7 years this site has been up, not once has this happened. And this would logically fall under the Common sense policy.

Don't be intentionally annoying!

Common sense prevails - if you are intentionally or continually making this community less enjoyable for others, you're going to be removed from it.

If someone was to actually do this, you could bet the admin's or Multi Hunters would be on it, and the user would likely be banned.

To be honest, I can't imagine someone doing this, because they would have to take the time to actually go through the scoreboard, go to each individual profile, and block. So they'd have to go to just under 13 000 different pages to do this. Then they would have to actually join each and every game (Up to the limit i mentioned earlier), or join every game with 1 slot left.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

Fazeem wrote:I think that this is a very valid suggestion a foe should only be able to block you from games they create. Making this change would definitely decrease frivolous foeing, multiple identical games that take forever to fill, increase participation. The current system provide the potential for 1 person on the site to lock the rest of the site out of every open public game they do not start.

Noone has addressed this issue and potential/actual abuse by the current system. this suggestion along with the other one of not being allowed to join games of people you foed would resolve these problems but which more effectively?

Not possible to join every game, as there is a 50 game limit on games waiting to Start.

I can't imagine someone actually doing this. In the 7 years this site has been up, not once has this happened. And this would logically fall under the Common sense policy.

Don't be intentionally annoying!

Common sense prevails - if you are intentionally or continually making this community less enjoyable for others, you're going to be removed from it.

If someone was to actually do this, you could bet the admin's or Multi Hunters would be on it, and the user would likely be banned.

To be honest, I can't imagine someone doing this, because they would have to take the time to actually go through the scoreboard, go to each individual profile, and block. So they'd have to go to just under 13 000 different pages to do this. Then they would have to actually join each and every game (Up to the limit i mentioned earlier), or join every game with 1 slot left.

On top of which, if they've foed everyone, then surely they won't be able to find and join the games in the first place...
I'd like to see "number of foes/ number foed by" indicator on everyone's profile - then it shouldn't be too hard for mods to pick up if anyone's going OTT with their foeing.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

Fazeem wrote:I think that this is a very valid suggestion a foe should only be able to block you from games they create. Making this change would definitely decrease frivolous foeing, multiple identical games that take forever to fill, increase participation. The current system provide the potential for 1 person on the site to lock the rest of the site out of every open public game they do not start.

Noone has addressed this issue and potential/actual abuse by the current system. this suggestion along with the other one of not being allowed to join games of people you foed would resolve these problems but which more effectively?

Not possible to join every game, as there is a 50 game limit on games waiting to Start.

I can't imagine someone actually doing this. In the 7 years this site has been up, not once has this happened. And this would logically fall under the Common sense policy.

Don't be intentionally annoying!

Common sense prevails - if you are intentionally or continually making this community less enjoyable for others, you're going to be removed from it.

If someone was to actually do this, you could bet the admin's or Multi Hunters would be on it, and the user would likely be banned.

To be honest, I can't imagine someone doing this, because they would have to take the time to actually go through the scoreboard, go to each individual profile, and block. So they'd have to go to just under 13 000 different pages to do this. Then they would have to actually join each and every game (Up to the limit i mentioned earlier), or join every game with 1 slot left.

so a premium can only join in 50 games?

You can only have 50 games awaiting players.

DoomYoshi wrote:You can only have 50 games awaiting players.

This. If you have 50 games in your "Awaiting Players" list, you can no longer join anymore games, Even if you were the last to join, as I believe it goes to the Awaiting Players list, recognizes that it's full, then pushes it to Active.

still this is a good idea the participants in a game should be up to the creator of the game not someone who joins

Fazeem wrote:still this is a good idea the participants in a game should be up to the creator of the game not someone who joins

Why can't the creator of the game simply contact the "foe-er" and ask them to either drop the game or unfoe the other individual that the creator of the game wants to play with?

That seems like the fix with the least amount of undesireable side-effects.

Woodruff wrote:

Fazeem wrote:still this is a good idea the participants in a game should be up to the creator of the game not someone who joins

Why can't the creator of the game simply contact the "foe-er" and ask them to either drop the game or unfoe the other individual that the creator of the game wants to play with?

That seems like the fix with the least amount of undesireable side-effects.

This doesn't apply to people have it to where people the foe cannot contact them (IE their PM's are auto-deleted)

Woodruff wrote:

Fazeem wrote:still this is a good idea the participants in a game should be up to the creator of the game not someone who joins

Why can't the creator of the game simply contact the "foe-er" and ask them to either drop the game or unfoe the other individual that the creator of the game wants to play with?

That seems like the fix with the least amount of undesireable side-effects.

a) How would they know who has foed whom?
b) What happens if they say No? Would you (as the creator of a game) really want to spend time trying to persuade someone to unfoe or leave a game?
c) What if the foe-er really wants to play that game, with some of the other participants? Why should they give up in favour of someone that they've foed?

Saying that "participants in a game should be up to the creator of the game" is too simplistic I'm afraid. There shouldn't be an attempt to force people to play together if they really can't stand each other. The Foe process is simple and clear as it stands, and there are plenty of games to choose from.

I don't think that ability to join foe's games should be allowed. But, I do think that the amount of people that one person can foe should have a cap. Feck medal hunters. I found that I was blocked out of a ton of escalating games at one point just because some idiot won against me once.

Cap should be set at a reasonable number. How many people is it likely that you would need to foe in order to block idiots? Certainly less than 100. (less than 50 even?) It would force people to review their foe lists and only put people on it that truly deserve to be there. Problem solved.

If you have a massive foe list, you're the one with the problem. There's less than 5 on mine, and they do deserve to be there. I don't want them joining a game that I have joined. They should not be allowed to dictate what games I can play since they're on my foe list. If I see them in a game, I will not join. If I join the game first, I deserve the right not to be harassed by them in the game chat... or targetted by them in gameplay.

I find it very frustrating not being able to join a game posted by a "friend" player, because another player who happened to have me in his foe list joined ahead of me.
I suggest the exclusion rule should be applied only to those in the foe list of whoever started the game.

After all, it is the player who started the game who is asking other players to join in, so it should up to that player to decide who should be not allowed to play.

clangfield wrote:13 million games (or thereabouts) played on this site. Is it so hard to find a game to play?

It can be if you're after speed games, live in a weird time zone and don't like all the maps. Of course, I could just create one and I accept that.

However -- could we have a message that says "You are not permitted to join this game because you were set as a foe" instead of "Game not found"?

Better yet, could there be a filter to just NOT show me games I can't join? It's pretty demoralising to keep trying to join games that the database "can't find".

I seem to have been foed a lot so there are a lot of games I can't join ...

I might be doing this wrong of course, I'm just hitting game finder --> public -- waiting for players -- all speed games.

However -- could we have a message that says "You are not permitted to join this game because you were set as a foe" instead of "Game not found"?

As far as I know this is a bug related to some update on the foe system.
I hope it will be fix anytime soon.

drose wrote:

clangfield wrote:13 million games (or thereabouts) played on this site. Is it so hard to find a game to play?

It can be if you're after speed games, live in a weird time zone and don't like all the maps. Of course, I could just create one and I accept that.

However -- could we have a message that says "You are not permitted to join this game because you were set as a foe" instead of "Game not found"?

Better yet, could there be a filter to just NOT show me games I can't join? It's pretty demoralising to keep trying to join games that the database "can't find".

I seem to have been foed a lot so there are a lot of games I can't join ...

I might be doing this wrong of course, I'm just hitting game finder --> public -- waiting for players -- all speed games.

Agree that not showing games one can't join would be beneficial. I'd be happy with it as a default but certainly an option should be possible.

I agree with your suggestion. Actually I posted a similar suggestion this morning. I am tired of medal chasers blocking me from games with people in my list of friends

I understand the problem with suiciders and abusers, the problem is that none reports them or if you do the moderators reply is usually too lame. I tried and got a disappointing reply. However, as someone already mentioned, if they are in your foe/ignore list they won't show in your chat.

The basic principle should be that whoever set up the game should be the only one with the right to exclude any other player.

Spiesr,
it looks like there is a majority that would like this to be changed.
Here is a compromise,
If you are in the Creator/Starter Friends list you can't be excluded from the game by being in the ignore list of another player